[LSJ] NoR Pre-release

Ok, the 40-40 rule, say that i bring 40 cards and 8 vamps with av.cap. 5. Then i decide to include say 8 imbued and only 4 vampires, can i do that ? (i believe yes) the 4 vamps that i am going to use, do they need to have an average cap. of 5 ? Can i include e.g. 25 NoR cards and only 35 of the 40 that i'll bring ?

The 40/40 you take to the tournament is the basis of your deck ... you can mix and match what you bring with those cards you get out of boosters as you see fit. The only criteria is that your deck has 60 library consisting of at least 20 NoR cards and 12 crypt cards using at least 4 from NoR. Here is a link that explains it all ... http://www.thelasombra.com/nights_of_reckoning_prerelease.txt D

Thank you very much, you've been very helpful.

tzimisce_dragon wrote: > Thank you very much, you've been very helpful. > Also, the 40/40 rule sucks. Go with sealed or draft instead, using one of the recursive deck variants. It'd be much better. (Just going with my experience of the original Bloodlines pre-release and how everyone's deck seemed to...well...not really play much of anything in the way of new cards, and was just some cheap sleaze base deck...) -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

A bit off the track but... Has anybody any ideas how to put a 40/40 Shambling Hordes deck together? I'd love to try it but 40 cards is awfully little for them.

Shamblers ... I would go with 10-15 Shamblers, some dominate bleed defence and bleed modifiers with necromancy stealth/block fails. Just focus on those aspects and you'll have a pretty strong deck depending on the cards from the new set. D

Salem, the difference here is that, supposedly, the new cards are all designed to be used by the new crypt, with no cross over. Bloodlines was a mix of stuff that just didn't work unless you had a lot of boosters of the set. The system we are going to use in Sydney is most likely booster draft with 8 boosters (minimum of 4 NoR but ratios selectable by player). That should work out. Unless of course some people want to play vamps vs hunters :) D

quetzalcoatl wrote: > Salem, > > the difference here is that, supposedly, the new cards are all designed > to be used by the new crypt, with no cross over. > > Bloodlines was a mix of stuff that just didn't work unless you had a > lot of boosters of the set. While there are differences, there is also the underlying "problem": if players just want to play their "cheap sleaze" 40/40 decks and play as little of the new stuff as possible, then yes, the 40/40 format is not well-suited to that group of players. If players are interested in approaching the pre-release as a chance to see/play the new cards, though, the 40/40 is fairly well suited to that group, and it among the least expensive of the options, as well. That's why each organizer is free to choose whatever format he or she wishes -- hopefully one that matches the local outlook on what a pre-release is.

Salem wrote: > tzimisce_dragon wrote: > > Thank you very much, you've been very helpful. > > > Also, the 40/40 rule sucks. Again, some players/deckbuilders just suck. :) What you had for breakfast today/yesterday, man? Was it that bad? ;) Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

There are cheese/sleaze deck builders out there ... but to be honest who is going to resist playing a theft of allies deck? I'm going to assume that there is some way to stop the easy theft of allies (otherwise why bother playing them) but it is a big vulnerability to the new set. Of course the pre-release will reveal all. I would have liked to have had time to build some generic 40/40 decks to hand out to players instead of them building their own, but time has been cruel to me recently :) D

quetzalcoatl wrote: > There are cheese/sleaze deck builders out there ... but to be honest > who is going to resist playing a theft of allies deck? But that's not sleaze. That's perfectly acceptable - and that deck *wants* to use as many NoR cards as possible to maximize its Ally potential. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course it's sleaze, what are you thinking? "Maximise it's ally potential" what a load, all a deck like that is looking to do is punish players for using the new cards. "No, thats not true, I want to fill my deck up with potentially useless crap, honest". Cheese and Sleaze don't mean illegal and unacceptable, they mean obscene abuse of the rules. Of course its acceptable, the rules don't preclude you from doing it, It's just that its, well, abusive.

LSJ wrote: > While there are differences, there is also the underlying "problem": if > players just want to play their "cheap sleaze" 40/40 decks and play as > little of the new stuff as possible, then yes, the 40/40 format is not > well-suited to that group of players. ... > That's why each organizer is free to choose whatever format he or she > wishes -- hopefully one that matches the local outlook on what a > pre-release is. Thats why we here (Frankfurt/Germany) draft completely 6 NoR Boosters and 40+8 cards, that the players will bring to the prerelease. So anti-NoR 40/40 decks are not possible. Everyone has 48 commons he can throw in the drafting pool (and i have prepared some packs for players, who will have forgotten their cards). Frank

In message <1144429088.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: >Of course it's sleaze, what are you thinking? "Maximise it's ally >potential" what a load, all a deck like that is looking to do is punish >players for using the new cards. "No, thats not true, I want to fill my >deck up with potentially useless crap, honest". Cheese and Sleaze don't >mean illegal and unacceptable, they mean obscene abuse of the rules. Huh? Stealth and bleed in regular games is frequently described as both cheese and sleaze. It is no way an obscene abuse of any rules - it's part of how the game is intended to be played! Re-defining terms on the fly with seemingly plausible but actually non-sensical definitions is, erm... less than helpful. What one person defines as sleaze is another person's finely honed deck, refined with vicious tournament wins and losses, so that it stands up to challenges without sacrificing its ousting potential. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1144429088.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: > >Of course it's sleaze, what are you thinking? "Maximise it's ally > >potential" what a load, all a deck like that is looking to do is punish > >players for using the new cards. "No, thats not true, I want to fill my > >deck up with potentially useless crap, honest". Cheese and Sleaze don't > >mean illegal and unacceptable, they mean obscene abuse of the rules. > > Huh? > > Stealth and bleed in regular games is frequently described as both > cheese and sleaze. It is no way an obscene abuse of any rules - it's > part of how the game is intended to be played! > At what point did I say that stealth / bleed was what I was refering to? > Re-defining terms on the fly with seemingly plausible but actually > non-sensical definitions is, erm... less than helpful. > As you like to say to others, look to what I was refering to J, The comment was merely directed at the assersion that a Ally theft deck would want hunter cards to maximise its ousting potential, thats all. Not about any other deck archetype or playstyle. > What one person defines as sleaze is another person's finely honed deck, > refined with vicious tournament wins and losses, so that it stands up to > challenges without sacrificing its ousting potential. > True, and in no way did I challenge that fact. Nearly everyone who gets ousted can point to thier predator at some point and say "cheesy git" but as you say, thats just part of the game. > -- > Sutekh_23

In message <1144462824.9...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <1144429088.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: >> >Of course it's sleaze, what are you thinking? "Maximise it's ally >> >potential" what a load, all a deck like that is looking to do is punish >> >players for using the new cards. "No, thats not true, I want to fill my >> >deck up with potentially useless crap, honest". Cheese and Sleaze don't >> >mean illegal and unacceptable, they mean obscene abuse of the rules. >> >> Huh? >> >> Stealth and bleed in regular games is frequently described as both >> cheese and sleaze. It is no way an obscene abuse of any rules - it's >> part of how the game is intended to be played! >> > >At what point did I say that stealth / bleed was what I was refering >to? You said that "cheese and sleaze [...] mean obscene abuse of the rules". I pointed out that they don't mean anything even close to that, using stealth and bleed as an example. That is, your claim of what cheese and sleaze mean is simply nothing like what people actually mean by the words cheese and sleaze. [ quoted text not captured ]

Actually here in Australia (where Sutekh is from ) cheese is any play that relies on nothing more than just playing the cards as they come - no tactics, no style. So for example a Stealth/Bleed deck is cheese because you just tap the vampires, bleed at stealth for massive amounts, rinse and repeat. We rate them (and their smelliness) based on if they even bother with combat defence or just bleed, die, bring out a new minion, bleed, die, etc. And so even though he seems to have reworded the term to the US contingents, in Australia it is used in a different context - our parlance is not the same. D

quetzalcoatl wrote: > Actually here in Australia (where Sutekh is from ) cheese is any play > that relies on nothing more than just playing the cards as they come - > no tactics, no style. I heard Australia was a pretty big place... > So for example a Stealth/Bleed deck is cheese because you just tap the > vampires, bleed at stealth for massive amounts, rinse and repeat. We > rate them (and their smelliness) based on if they even bother with > combat defence or just bleed, die, bring out a new minion, bleed, die, > etc. Lots of decks "just play the cards as they come"--you have a minion, it can do what it can do based on the cards you draw. Why are some chains of cards and actions "cheesy" and others aren't? S+B decks consist of a minion with a stealth discipline, a bleed discipline, and drawing cards to make it go. How is that any different than a Rush deck, that has a combat discipline and a way to get into combat, and then drawing cards to make it go? Or a vote deck, which generally has political actions, a discipline to pass votes, and drawing cards to make it go? And who determines what is or is non "tactics" or "style"? I have seen very stylish decks that exist, literally, to get out Werewolf Packs and turn them into Abominations. Which makes for a fairly useless deck that just gets ousted quickly and makes their predator win. The deck is really funny. But bad for the game. Would you rather see a deck like this that just throws the game out the window, essentially, than a S+B deck that can oust folks and actually win by trying to win? > And so even though he seems to have reworded the term to the US > contingents, in Australia it is used in a different context - our > parlance is not the same. I suspect that James was not actually trying to figure out the defenition of "cheese", any more than I am, but was instead questioning the very concept as silly. But I could be wrong. -Peter

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1144462824.9...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: > >James Coupe wrote: > >> In message <1144429088.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > >> sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: > >> >Of course it's sleaze, what are you thinking? "Maximise it's ally > >> >potential" what a load, all a deck like that is looking to do is punish > >> >players for using the new cards. "No, thats not true, I want to fill my > >> >deck up with potentially useless crap, honest". Cheese and Sleaze don't > >> >mean illegal and unacceptable, they mean obscene abuse of the rules. > >> > >> Huh? > >> > >> Stealth and bleed in regular games is frequently described as both > >> cheese and sleaze. It is no way an obscene abuse of any rules - it's > >> part of how the game is intended to be played! > >> > > > >At what point did I say that stealth / bleed was what I was refering > >to? > > You said that "cheese and sleaze [...] mean obscene abuse of the rules". > > I pointed out that they don't mean anything even close to that, using > stealth and bleed as an example. That is, your claim of what cheese and > sleaze mean is simply nothing like what people actually mean by the > words cheese and sleaze. > James, all you point out is your basic inhability to grasp the basic connotations of the english language. If all you can see in a post is the words in front of you, then no wonder people ignore you continued tripe, no matter what the subject or weather or not you may be correct or not. Quite frankley to me your return posts are a joke, you persist in picking up pathetic language errors or "please refer to posting rulings" crap. How's about in the 3 years you have spent on usenet you are yet to offer a valid thought or idea? Rather than shooting down the thoughts of others, perhaps you should post an original thought? Automatons (forgive to incorect spelling, I'll ask for it now) such as yourself are only able to spew forth rulings (half of them incorect anyway) and think "yeah, I'm the bomb" You are a pimple on the butt of the V:tes community, Please fall off, or at least wake up to yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Apr 2006 05:36:33 -0700, "quetzalcoatl" <da...@vega.id.au> wrote: >And so even though he seems to have reworded the term to the US >contingents, in Australia it is used in a different context - our >parlance is not the same. From the Legbiter: "the Hated Coupe, Beneath Whose Iron heel the Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan" [LEG 7-12-00] [LEG 2-17-00] [LEG 2-3-00] [more] James is not from the US, nor is the discussion of cheese as he has defined it particular to the US. He has defined Cheese correctly as it is used on this international Usenet newsgroup. He really should fill out the Who's Who questionaire that has been sent to him on many occasions to prevent this type of confusion. http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/index.htm

[ quoted text not captured ] You are using regional slang to define "sleaze and cheese". You are in a part of Australia, I believe, speaking to a Brit in a primarily international forum. Perhaps you should be more specific. >all you can see in a post is > the words in front of you, then no wonder people ignore you continued > tripe, no matter what the subject or weather or not you may be correct > or not. Quite frankley to me your return posts are a joke, you persist > in picking up pathetic language errors or "please refer to posting > rulings" crap. How's about in the 3 years you have spent on usenet you > are yet to offer a valid thought or idea? Rather than shooting down the > thoughts of others, perhaps you should post an original thought? > Automatons (forgive to incorect spelling, I'll ask for it now) such as > yourself are only able to spew forth rulings (half of them incorect > anyway) and think "yeah, I'm the bomb" How do you know what James thinks? Apparently you are psychic. The posting rules are for the ignorant or the idiot, take them as you like. I for one am glad that he is educating newsgroup newbies who are used to webforums. As for most of the other stuff in your thread it appears to be inane, misguided, and immature and that's not very nice. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swmap

My apologies for not getting James' location correct :) However now I understand that usenet parlance uses cheese/sleaze differently than we do in Australia. To illustrate the differences that occur between our local parlance and other locations, the word "thong" does not mean the same in Australia as it does in other places, nor does your famous store Roots Kids. The first word (thong) is footwear here ... I think they're flip-flops in other places, while I'll leave Root's Kids to the imagination. D

In message <1144504320.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: >James, all you point out is your basic inhability to grasp the basic >connotations of the english language. If all you can see in a post is >the words in front of you, How would you suggest I read a post using the words that aren't in front of me? If you claim that words mean something which they patently don't, which words would you expect me to invent to make them mean whatever it is you've twisted them into meaning? I'm afraid that if you think people can somehow invent whatever slang you happen to use casually when, instead of being civil and explaining it you decide to be offensive instead, it is you who has failed to grasp the basics of language. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1144503239.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >Lots of decks "just play the cards as they come"--you have a minion, it >can do what it can do based on the cards you draw. Why are some chains >of cards and actions "cheesy" and others aren't? S+B decks consist of a >minion with a stealth discipline, a bleed discipline, and drawing cards >to make it go. How is that any different than a Rush deck, that has a >combat discipline and a way to get into combat, and then drawing cards >to make it go? Or a vote deck, which generally has political actions, a >discipline to pass votes, and drawing cards to make it go? On this point, it's things like this that mean it's often worthwhile getting players to play a deck before dismissing it as "cheesy", "sleazy", "boring", "easy", "over-powered" or whatever other terms people throw at decks they don't happen to like. If you look at, say, some trick decks, something like Turbo Arika or Turbo Baron is often the sort of deck that people abuse as being <some term of abuse>. But when you actually sit down and play such decks, or stand over someone's shoulder and watch all the decisions they're having to make, it can be a LOT less simple. They're not drawing what they should (or at least what they hope), because their deck has clumped as any randomly shuffled deck can. Or a particularly unfortunate combination of cards has transpired to mean that the holes in their deck - which most such decks have in spades, if you can get in under the covers - can be exposed but it doesn't want to draw attention to them. And the general table wrath issues, on top of anything else. And that, of course, extends to many, many deck types. Rush combat, say. Do I attempt this rush now, when I don't quite have the cards I need in hand BUT there's a reasonable chance I can draw them? Say I have a Bum's Rush, a Flash, a Torn Signpost and a Sideslip on hand - but I don't have a Blur or an Immortal Grapple. If I rush now and screw it up, things could go badly. If I don't rush now, he might be able to oust me next turn if he has a bleed modifier (of which there are a scattering, but not lots, in his ash heap). Similarly, stealth bleed decks can often find themselves in trouble against combat decks, table wrath, bounce and so on. If I go all out NOW, I can probably get that VP. But if I go all out and dump 12 bleed in one turn, it's opening me up to a lot of problems with Deflection and those people cross-table who were turning a blind eye to me will suddenly think "What the hell?" and start helping out. >I suspect that James was not actually trying to figure out the >defenition of "cheese", any more than I am, but was instead questioning >the very concept as silly. But I could be wrong. Sort of. There's also the fact that any deck which is somehow an "abuse of the rules", or somesuch, is something that should be addressed and remedied if it actually is an abuse of the rules, rather than a deck- style that just isn't liked by some people. (Pretty much every deck- style isn't liked by some people.) Or where thinking "Hey, this is a game that's going to have a lot of <some popular or brand new technology> in it, so I'll actually think about that when building my deck" is somehow considered an "abuse of the rules", because that means you can't think "Hey, I might see quite a few Laibon" when Legacies of Blood gets released (which would be strange). In as much as that sort of thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it doesn't make a whole lot more sense to start deciding that cheese and sleaze suddenly mean brand new nonsensical things. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > quetzalcoatl wrote: >> Actually here in Australia (where Sutekh is from ) cheese is any play >> that relies on nothing more than just playing the cards as they come - >> no tactics, no style. > > I heard Australia was a pretty big place... It is. I'm not entirely convinced quetzalcoatl's opinion is necessarily country-wide. [ quoted text not captured ]

True, true it is a big place ... and it really depends on where you grew up etc. However since most of Australia is desert and only 30% is really used, it isn't that big :) But yes ... I should have been more specific and said Sydney, Australia. D

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Lots of decks "just play the cards as they come"--you have a minion, it > can do what it can do based on the cards you draw. Why are some chains > of cards and actions "cheesy" and others aren't? S+B decks consist of a > minion with a stealth discipline, a bleed discipline, and drawing cards > to make it go. How is that any different than a Rush deck, that has a > combat discipline and a way to get into combat, and then drawing cards > to make it go? Or a vote deck, which generally has political actions, a > discipline to pass votes, and drawing cards to make it go? I do believe that rush decks are more of a thinking man's archetype. I mean, Jame's reply does a very good job of pointing out that no jyhad deck is totally mindless, but I still think playing rush effectively requires a lot more analysis of the table as a whole than the other "straight to the pool" legs of the triangle. But of course there's rush decks and then there's rush decks, and to the degree that your rush deck is a mono-discipline weenie deck, I think it takes less thought, perhaps on par with a bleed or vote deck. -- David Cherryholmes

quetzalcoatl wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Or even Blacktown... Chris.

Yeah or that :) Damn you Chris! Hope to see you out this way next Monday. D

bluedevil wrote: > I do believe that rush decks are more of a thinking man's archetype. I > mean, Jame's reply does a very good job of pointing out that no jyhad > deck is totally mindless, but I still think playing rush effectively > requires a lot more analysis of the table as a whole than the other > "straight to the pool" legs of the triangle. But of course there's > rush decks and then there's rush decks, and to the degree that your > rush deck is a mono-discipline weenie deck, I think it takes less > thought, perhaps on par with a bleed or vote deck. Dave, I'm not quite sure I follow your angle (or more to the point, I'm not sure if your angle is dicky or not...) Yes. Rush decks (all Rush decks, mono discipline weenie or no) require a great deal of table management and careful play to be successful with. But so do vote decks. And S+B decks. So on one hand, *all* deck archetypes require analysis and deliberate play. On the other hand, all decks are designed to do something, and as long as you draw cards, you can pretty much do that thing. In terms of the discussion that was at hand at the time (i.e. "cheesy" decks or something), all decks are essentially the same--your deck does something, and as long as you draw cards and nothing foils you, it is going to do that: -S+B: Draw cards to bleed at stealth. As long as you draw cards, your vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't block/bounce your bleeds, you'll do ok. -Vote: Draw cards to call votes. As long as you draw cards, your vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't block or vote down your votes, you'll do ok. -Rush: Draw cards to kill people. As long as you draw cards, your vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't foil your combat, you'll do ok. *All* decks are "point and go". And all decks require careful table management and selective action to do well with. Which was my point. I'm still kinda lost on yours. -Peter

In message <1144790954.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >In terms of the discussion that was at hand at the time (i.e. "cheesy" >decks or something), all decks are essentially the same--your deck does >something, and as long as you draw cards and nothing foils you, it is >going to do that: > >-S+B: Draw cards to bleed at stealth. As long as you draw cards, your >vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't block/bounce your >bleeds, you'll do ok. > >-Vote: Draw cards to call votes. As long as you draw cards, your >vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't block or vote down your >votes, you'll do ok. > >-Rush: Draw cards to kill people. As long as you draw cards, your >vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't foil your combat, >you'll do ok. > >*All* decks are "point and go". And all decks require careful table >management and selective action to do well with. Which was my point. I was thinking some about this sort of thing at work earlier, and your post reminded me of it. At a very highly skilled level (e.g. if you took the best five players in the world and made them fight it out), most solid decks would require a heck of a lot of skill to play. When you move further down the skill level, generally speaking it's much easier to oust a newbie if you have a bleed deck, or a vote deck. The skill level needed for a combat deck drops too, but there's still quite a few decisions you need to make that don't vary as much from the top rank games - you still have some pretty precarious decisions to make about when to back-rush and when to pile in on your prey, and whether to skip forward to tenderise your grand-prey or not, and so on. I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, it's just a thought that occurred while I was bored. But maybe "cheese" (whatever that might be) is related to how easy the deck is when playing against easy prey - a deck that has more effort required at that level is inherently less cheesy, perhaps. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Dave, I'm not quite sure I follow your angle (or more to the point, I'm > not sure if your angle is dicky or not...) If it was, then it was unintentional. My post did contain a sky-is-blue statement about weenie decks which people may or may not agree with (some do, some don't), but I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't think *any* jyhad deck is brainless. I mean, some decks probably are brainless, but no actual game is. > Yes. Rush decks (all Rush > decks, mono discipline weenie or no) require a great deal of table > management and careful play to be successful with. But so do vote > decks. And S+B decks. So on one hand, *all* deck archetypes require > analysis and deliberate play. On the other hand, all decks are designed > to do something, and as long as you draw cards, you can pretty much do > that thing. Right. But I wasn't making some absolute statement, brainless or not-brainless. I was making a relative comparison, which I still think is true. > In terms of the discussion that was at hand at the time (i.e. "cheesy" > decks or something), all decks are essentially the same--your deck does > something, and as long as you draw cards and nothing foils you, it is > going to do that: All decks aren't the same. I mean, we can just forego trying to nail down what "cheesy" is and, as long as we can agree that it is *something*, then I would say some decks possess that quality in greater amounts than others. Hence, all decks are clearly not the same. > -S+B: Draw cards to bleed at stealth. As long as you draw cards, your > vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't block/bounce your > bleeds, you'll do ok. > > -Vote: Draw cards to call votes. As long as you draw cards, your > vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't block or vote down your > votes, you'll do ok. > > -Rush: Draw cards to kill people. As long as you draw cards, your > vampires aren't all killed, and your prey can't foil your combat, > you'll do ok. The difference is that Rush can be foiled by a simple choice. Your prey can choose to not bring out any vampires, in which case he drags you down with him. Arranging to move forward without triggering that choice is largely what I was talking about (along with the backoust question that James mentioned in his reply). It's not a problem if you have a horde of weenies who can bleed for one. But if you don't, pure rush is going to be *very* difficult. You can certainly hybrid your deck, and probably should, but that doesn't change the truth of what I'm saying. And also note that the other two won't *require* hybridization. These are some of the reasons I'm willing to assert (non-weenie) rush is more difficult to play. You could also just count up the number of rush decks, bleed decks, and vote decks in the TWD archive and support the assertion that way, but it's a different line of argument than the one I'm making now. > *All* decks are "point and go". And all decks require careful table > management and selective action to do well with. Which was my point. All decks aren't equally so. We may have just reached the Bakija-Cherryholmes Point of Dueling Assertions. > I'm still kinda lost on yours. Hope I cleared it up. -- David Cherryholmes

bluedevil wrote: > All decks aren't the same. I mean, we can just forego trying to nail > down what "cheesy" is and, as long as we can agree that it is > *something*, then I would say some decks possess that quality in > greater amounts than others. Hence, all decks are clearly not the > same. Yeah, see, I am unwilling to agree that "cheesy" means anything at all :-) > The difference is that Rush can be foiled by a simple choice. Your > prey can choose to not bring out any vampires, in which case he drags > you down with him. That is where the small vampire Rush deck excells--if he doesn't bring anything out, he gets ousted pretty quickly (no vampires=no pool gain worth mentioning). Even if it takes 5 or 6 turns, that isn't at all a bad deal for an oust, as you get to use all your combat defensively. > But if you don't, pure rush is going to be *very* difficult. Pure rush that is either not a weenie deck or has no way to deal with this sort of thing is a losing deck from the get go. Like, either you have weenies and multiple Computer Hackings or you have big vampires and some way to bleed for more than 1 per turn (permanents/Conditionings/something). I mean, it seems possible that there are some sort of super multi-rush Fatima decks that get out 2 or 3 minions, have no bleed increasers, and rely solely on Fame/Tension/Dragonbound for ousting. But that strikes me as a pretty significant flaw in the deck. > Hope I cleared it up. Pretty much. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > bluedevil wrote: > > All decks aren't the same. I mean, we can just forego trying to nail > > down what "cheesy" is and, as long as we can agree that it is > > *something*, then I would say some decks possess that quality in > > greater amounts than others. Hence, all decks are clearly not the > > same. > > Yeah, see, I am unwilling to agree that "cheesy" means anything at all Some decks do not permit much player interaction (outside of ganging up on the deck itself). Other decks ruin the spirit of the format or change entirely the game you are playing. In my experience, these are almost always the only decks called "cheesy" or "sleazy". A deck which relies entirely on Obedience and master cards is an example of the former. You'll never use any intercept to stop its actions as it doesn't take any. You'll never rush it successfully unless it somehow runs out of Obedience. Bringing a Merge Sebastian Goulet deck to a NoR prerelease is an example of the latter--why have a prerelease? To use the new cards. Why bring disincentive to use the new cards? Cause it wins. Why win if noone's enjoying themselves? Dunno. I think these two concepts have been equivocated accidentally in this thread. If your playgroup is not getting to experience the new cards during a prerelease, maybe you've outgrown your format, or maybe some players just don't understand the point of the format to be the same thing. HOWEVER, if a deck in Vampire is able to be a Solitaire deck, then there's a problem. In my recollection, the only real approaching-solitaire V:TES deck was the Anarch Revolt Parthenon Anson monstrosity, which just might oust you before you can burn even 1 of its Revolts--but that's fixed now. Stealth bleed is "non interactive" in the sense that if you're not playing rush, and you can't catch their gobs of stealth, and you aren't playing bounce, then you're going to lose 5-10 pool a turn until you die, and there's nothing you can do about it. These things are considerations for deck design, and really, stealth bleed is so incredibly powerfully solitaire in its style that it has to be planned for-- and it's so planned for that it's standard to include 8 copies of Deflection in your deck. Which makes it not solitaire anymore. Just posting to increase understanding. I hope you've learned something from this post, Peter, and if you disagree with me, then I hope I will learn something from your post. -- Brian

firstconform...@aol.com wrote: > Some decks do not permit much player interaction (outside of ganging up > on the deck itself). Other decks ruin the spirit of the format or > change entirely the game you are playing. In my experience, these are > almost always the only decks called "cheesy" or "sleazy". Yeah, I guess I was just being too opaque. I understand what people mean when they call something "cheesy" or "sleazy". But I think that it is completely irrelevant and not an issue that is worth worrying about, as it is wildly subjective, and as such, impossible to identify accurately, so it is impossible to avoid. If someone wants to call something "cheesy", they are going to, regardless of whether or not the deck does not permit player interaction. There is simply no significant defenition, and basically "cheesy" just means "that deck which just happened to irritate me in the last game..." > HOWEVER, if a deck in Vampire is able to be a Solitaire deck, > then there's a problem. Sure. But no decks in Vampire are solitaire decks. As you point out further on. > Just posting to increase understanding. I hope you've learned > something from this post, Peter, and if you disagree with me, then I > hope I will learn something from your post. Oh, I know what people mean when they call things cheesy. I just, again, think it is an irelevant label. -Peter